Talk:Second lady

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2022)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

[Untitled][edit]

Can anyone demonstrate this term being used outside the United States?

Bump The article cites zero non-US references, and no references for anyone on the "List" being referred to as a Second lady. Can anybody cite sources for this? 162.208.168.92 (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Office of Protocol[edit]

“

According to the United States State Department Office of Protocol, the term is considered an anachronism.^{[citation needed]}

”

I removed this statement after 6 years being uncited. I can't find any sources. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 January 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lady → Second spouse – The title does not reflect the full scope of the article which include husbands of female deputy heads of government and female deputy heads of state. Same arguments as in First spouse. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and combine with Talk:First Lady#Requested move 25 January 2020. Absolutely no reason to handle separately. -- Netoholic @ 22:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 January 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to a different name (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second lady → ? – The title does not reflect the full scope of the article which include husbands of female deputy heads of government and female deputy heads of state. Showiecz (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The current article title should probably be consistent with the current article title of First Lady, because there are also female heads of state and government. The last page move discussion proposing a gender-neutral title, Talk:First Lady#Requested move 25 January 2020, resulted in no consensus. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be treated differently from First lady and more consistent with Second Ladies and Gentlemen of the United States and Spouse of the vice president of India. Showiecz (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:PRECISE & WP:NPOVNAME. Showiecz (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know, I feel like this is a solution in search of a problem. Most of the second spouses have historically been female, so I think that the current title with a redirect here for Second gentleman works fine.
      - WP:PRECISE and WP:NPOVNAME could also be used as arguments to rename First Lady too, since there are also First Ladies and Gentlemen of India and Spouse of the prime minister of the United Kingdom and the like. But I would rather both articles be consistent. Zzyzx11 (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Second lady is a good topic with a recognisable name. We have come up with noting better. Male spouses, female heads of state, and various GLBTetc combinations can validly be part of this article with redirects. (And who knows, in eight years' time the US of A may even have its first female President unless the Republicans can reinvent themselves in the interim.) Andrewa (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There really aren't any better alternatives. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.